The Forum Site - Join the conversation
Forums: Politics:
Racism

Does it matter?

Reply to Topic
AuthorMessage
Pages: << · 1 2 3 4 5 6 · >>
Eaglebauer On July 23, 2019
Moderator
Deleted



Saint Louis, Missouri
#63New Post! Apr 03, 2019 @ 12:53:03
@nooneinparticular Said

I made no judgement on which is better or preferable and I made no comment on positive or negative conditioning. Be that as it may, lets go down this rabbit hole a bit. How would you use positive reinforcement to change the behavior of 'the girl who refuses to learn'? The key to positive reinforcement is that the person in question must act positively in some way in order to receive a reinforcer. What do you do if the girl doesn't act positively to justify a reinforcer?


You absolutely have made those judgements and comments.

You're arguing that if someone makes a public statement that others perceive as racist, before determining if that person even realizes he has offended someone, and even if he is completely innocent of intentionally causing offense, the only appropriate thing to do is for others to publicly shame him.

This is exactly what negative conditioning is. And because you say this is the only way to get him to change his behavior, you leave no possible room for positive reinforcement.

As far as the girl who refuses to change her behavior, that is when punishment is appropriate.

If she is offending others out of complete ignorance of doing so, she should be told she is offending others, it should be explained why, and then she can be given the opportunity to act correctly. Then rewarded for doing so. That is when positive reinforcement is the better option because it will condition her to act correctly of her own free will rather than to just escape punishment. If she doesn't act correctly after knowing the situation, then, we agree, she deserves punishment.

This entire thread, everything I have said has been in reference to people who do not intentionally harm or offend someone, not people who willingly do so. Positive reinforcement obviously is not applicable to someone who is acting negatively with intent for that case.

So to bring it to a point:

Negative reactions and conditions should take place when someone knowingly does wrong or causes harm. Positive reinforcement should take place when someone makes a mistake and is made to understand how that mistake has caused issues, and changes his or her behavior voluntarily to avoid future harm.

My single issue is that I think you're saying that even if someone doesn't know he's causing harm, he deserves to be punished and conditioned negatively. That is how serial killers and criminals are created out of children who learn that the only way to get things they want or to get people to act how they'd like them to act is by inflicting harm. Because that's the only tool they've been given in learning how to change their own behavior. This isn't really an opinion...it's been proven time and time again.

So to bring it to a finer point and answer (again) the question posed by this thread: Yes, it matters if harm is intentional.

You keep insisting that I'm taking us down rabbit holes, but I'm only trying to address your question.

Quote:

For the perpetrator, not the victim. The victim has to deal with shame in a whole different way from the perpetrator. For the perpetrator, you either feel bad about what you did and change how you act, or you don't.


Even if the perpetrator is given zero chance to understand that he has done something others perceive as wrong? Not even necessarily wrong...just that others perceive is wrong? Isn't that potentially holding him accountable for someone else's subjective opinion he has no control over?

My point is that if someone knowingly does something he shouldn't, the proper approach to deal with it should be different than if someone does something that causes offense without even realizing it.

Quote:

So you state simultaneously that basic human psychology is both right and not always going to be helpful or desirable? How exactly does that work?


I'm speaking in terms of it being factually correct. If you don't like it that people who constantly face insults every day regardless of the veracity of those insults are going to have a necessarily more negative outlook on life than people who don't face those things, I'm sorry...but those are scientifically verified facts.

Whether or not it's helpful or desirable for them to have that sort of outlook or reaction is debatable, but it doesn't really change anything about how the average human mind will respond to that sort of treatment.

Quote:

That's where this has been going. I don't attach any sense of responsibility to feelings of shame. I have stated repeatedly that feelings of responsibility can only be decided by each individual person. When I say that people who feel bad for having hurt others feel shame, that is not a statement about what they should feel. It is a statement of what they feel. If they feel bad about having done something, then they feel shame for having done that thing. Regardless of whether or not it was an accident.


Not all negative feelings are feelings of shame though. Feeling sorry for something does not necessarily denote embarrassment or humiliation over it. Shame does. You can feel bad for the outcome of something without being ashamed of it.

But let's not forget that the whole reason the concept of shame was brought into this is because you initially referred to shame being purposely inflicted upon someone for a perceived offense. Not that the person spontaneously felt bad for something they did...that they did something that offended someone else, even unwittingly, and that the offended or group of offended individuals then "decides to put another on blast for a perceived racist or sexist comment" (your words).

So that person is now potentially being held accountable for what's going on in someone else's head without purposely causing it to happen. How they perceived an action. And the result is that the person with the perception is trying to inflict shame on the person committing the act based on his perception and nothing else.

Quote:

Let's look back to one of the first examples in this thread. If I accidentally punch someone while stretching, then I will still feel bad about having caused harm to another, even if it was an accident. I will attempt to make sure that it doesn't happen again, even if the first instance was an accident.

Now lets contrast this with a person who doesn't feel bad for punching someone accidentally. Suppose they decide that because it was an accident, they shouldn't feel bad about it. Suppose they believe that it was unavoidable. Thus they will make no effort to prevent it in the future, and consequentially it will happen again at a higher frequency than if they had taken steps to avoid it. They 'refused to learn' as it were.


You're completely glossing over the huge point I've been making this whole time that empathy can keep someone from making the mistake again. Empathy can cause someone to feel bad for causing harm to another. Empathy is not the same thing as shame, and my entire (only) reasoning for positing my experience and insisting to you that I was not ashamed of those experiences was to show that it can emerge from things that are not shame. That's all I've been saying, and it's been completely on point with what we've been talking about.

If someone I love gets hurt in a car accident that I'm not involved in at all, I'm not going to be ashamed of the car accident but I'll still feel bad that he or she has been hurt. Because I empathize with them and don't want them to be hurt. And so I learn to not cause car accidents because it will cause that pain in someone else.
nooneinparticular On March 16, 2023




, Hawaii
#64New Post! Apr 03, 2019 @ 20:08:36
@Eaglebauer Said

You absolutely have made those judgements and comments.

You're arguing that if someone makes a public statement that others perceive as racist, before determining if that person even realizes he has offended someone, and even if he is completely innocent of intentionally causing offense, the only appropriate thing to do is for others to publicly shame him.

This is exactly what negative conditioning is. And because you say this is the only way to get him to change his behavior, you leave no possible room for positive reinforcement.

As far as the girl who refuses to change her behavior, that is when punishment is appropriate.

If she is offending others out of complete ignorance of doing so, she should be told she is offending others, it should be explained why, and then she can be given the opportunity to act correctly. Then rewarded for doing so. That is when positive reinforcement is the better option because it will condition her to act correctly of her own free will rather than to just escape punishment. If she doesn't act correctly after knowing the situation, then, we agree, she deserves punishment.

This entire thread, everything I have said has been in reference to people who do not intentionally harm or offend someone, not people who willingly do so. Positive reinforcement obviously is not applicable to someone who is acting negatively with intent for that case.

So to bring it to a point:

Negative reactions and conditions should take place when someone knowingly does wrong or causes harm. Positive reinforcement should take place when someone makes a mistake and is made to understand how that mistake has caused issues, and changes his or her behavior voluntarily to avoid future harm.

My single issue is that I think you're saying that even if someone doesn't know he's causing harm, he deserves to be punished and conditioned negatively. That is how serial killers and criminals are created out of children who learn that the only way to get things they want or to get people to act how they'd like them to act is by inflicting harm. Because that's the only tool they've been given in learning how to change their own behavior. This isn't really an opinion...it's been proven time and time again.

So to bring it to a finer point and answer (again) the question posed by this thread: Yes, it matters if harm is intentional.

You keep insisting that I'm taking us down rabbit holes, but I'm only trying to address your question.


And once again, I'm saying that I'm making no comment on whether or not a person "deserves" anything. Something is clearly getting lost here, so let's reiterate the positions I've taken in this thread right here.

1) People have the right to be vindictive or 'childish' however we want to define it, regardless of how that affects the wider discussion. That does not mean, however, that other people don't have the right to judge them negatively for acting that way.

2) Based on this right, any argument that uses ignorance as a defense is not particularly compelling for anyone who does not already believe in it. This does not imply that such a stance is necessarily wrong.

3) Based on these two points, whether or not a person feels shame for their actions is entirely up to that person and what they believe. I do not comment on whether or not a person SHOULD feel shame for any given action.

4) As a consequence of #3, IF, and only IF, a person feels shame for what they've done, they can use that shame to better themselves. As another consequence of #3, if a person DOESN'T feel shame for what they've done, they don't really have a reason to change how they act.

Nowhere in any of these points do I say, or even imply, that any person "deserves" to be publicly shamed.

Quote:

Even if the perpetrator is given zero chance to understand that he has done something others perceive as wrong? Not even necessarily wrong...just that others perceive is wrong? Isn't that potentially holding him accountable for someone else's subjective opinion he has no control over?

My point is that if someone knowingly does something he shouldn't, the proper approach to deal with it should be different than if someone does something that causes offense without even realizing it.


And my point is that regardless of what I think the "proper approach" is, there will be other people who will not follow it. Now I have a choice to make. Either force their compliance through laws or culture, or accept that their stances are tolerable. I accept that their stances are tolerable. This does not mean, however, that I think their stances are either acceptable or correct.

Quote:

I'm speaking in terms of it being factually correct. If you don't like it that people who constantly face insults every day regardless of the veracity of those insults are going to have a necessarily more negative outlook on life than people who don't face those things, I'm sorry...but those are scientifically verified facts.

Whether or not it's helpful or desirable for them to have that sort of outlook or reaction is debatable, but it doesn't really change anything about how the average human mind will respond to that sort of treatment.


When I said "right", I was talking about it's morals or how righteous it is, not it's factual basis. I assumed that pairing it with the word 'desirable' would get the point across. Clearly I was mistaken.

Quote:

Not all negative feelings are feelings of shame though. Feeling sorry for something does not necessarily denote embarrassment or humiliation over it. Shame does. You can feel bad for the outcome of something without being ashamed of it.

But let's not forget that the whole reason the concept of shame was brought into this is because you initially referred to shame being purposely inflicted upon someone for a perceived offense. Not that the person spontaneously felt bad for something they did...that they did something that offended someone else, even unwittingly, and that the offended or group of offended individuals then "decides to put another on blast for a perceived racist or sexist comment" (your words).

So that person is now potentially being held accountable for what's going on in someone else's head without purposely causing it to happen. How they perceived an action. And the result is that the person with the perception is trying to inflict shame on the person committing the act based on his perception and nothing else.

You're completely glossing over the huge point I've been making this whole time that empathy can keep someone from making the mistake again. Empathy can cause someone to feel bad for causing harm to another. Empathy is not the same thing as shame, and my entire (only) reasoning for positing my experience and insisting to you that I was not ashamed of those experiences was to show that it can emerge from things that are not shame. That's all I've been saying, and it's been completely on point with what we've been talking about.

If someone I love gets hurt in a car accident that I'm not involved in at all, I'm not going to be ashamed of the car accident but I'll still feel bad that he or she has been hurt. Because I empathize with them and don't want them to be hurt. And so I learn to not cause car accidents because it will cause that pain in someone else.


I refer you to the numbered stances above.
Eaglebauer On July 23, 2019
Moderator
Deleted



Saint Louis, Missouri
#65New Post! Apr 04, 2019 @ 12:18:10
@nooneinparticular Said

And once again, I'm saying that I'm making no comment on whether or not a person "deserves" anything. Something is clearly getting lost here, so let's reiterate the positions I've taken in this thread right here.

1) People have the right to be vindictive or 'childish' however we want to define it, regardless of how that affects the wider discussion. That does not mean, however, that other people don't have the right to judge them negatively for acting that way.

2) Based on this right, any argument that uses ignorance as a defense is not particularly compelling for anyone who does not already believe in it. This does not imply that such a stance is necessarily wrong.

3) Based on these two points, whether or not a person feels shame for their actions is entirely up to that person and what they believe. I do not comment on whether or not a person SHOULD feel shame for any given action.

4) As a consequence of #3, IF, and only IF, a person feels shame for what they've done, they can use that shame to better themselves. As another consequence of #3, if a person DOESN'T feel shame for what they've done, they don't really have a reason to change how they act.

Nowhere in any of these points do I say, or even imply, that any person "deserves" to be publicly shamed.


Yes...I understand that. I'm not stupid. I understand you're not making comments on how a person should feel. You do this a lot, you raise points and then say "well I'm not saying a person should feel this or that and I have no skin in this fight and I really don't care what people feel." I get it...you don't care what people feel. Okay.

If you're not making comments on how people should act, all you're really saying is that they can act this way or that if they want to. Well, that's true, but so what? If we aren't talking about what people should do, what's the point of asking whether or not intentions are important?

So moving on...again...you're saying that if someone does something that offends someone else, the offended has the right to punish them somehow or try to make them feel ashamed. Regardless of whether or not they meant to cause offense. Sure, they have the right. And then that person can get offended that they were publicly shamed and exact retaliation. And then the other people can get offended again and etc, etc, etc, infinite regress of people getting offended and acting like children. Yeah, they have the right. I never denied that.

I think people should take the time to try to understand things when they happen. Because...of all the reasons I've been giving you. That is why I think people should be treated differently when they mean to cause offense versus when they do. I can't really frame my answer properly without saying that, and you're saying I can't really bring that up because "you're not saying people should do this or that." I'm not trying to refute anything by bringing it up though, I'm explaining why I think intent matters.

So again, to keep this simple, you're asking "does it matter if the person doesn't know he is causing offense?"

My answer is yes, it matters. If you think it doesn't, great...I think it does. And I believe people can change their behavior without feeling shame for past behavior. If you think they can't, great. I think you're wrong. I have given clear reasons for why I think so. If you don't want to acknowledge them or don't agree, we're at am impasse.

Jesus Christ, it doesn't have to be this difficult.
newcarscent7 On March 18, 2020




Cleveland, Ohio
#66New Post! Apr 04, 2019 @ 13:38:36
First off, how can one be accidentally racist? Either you are or aren't.

That being said, there should be, at the very least, some sort of corrective action, even if verbal, to prevent it from happening again.
nooneinparticular On March 16, 2023




, Hawaii
#67New Post! Apr 04, 2019 @ 17:57:16
@Eaglebauer Said

Yes...I understand that. I'm not stupid. I understand you're not making comments on how a person should feel. You do this a lot, you raise points and then say "well I'm not saying a person should feel this or that and I have no skin in this fight and I really don't care what people feel." I get it...you don't care what people feel. Okay.

If you're not making comments on how people should act, all you're really saying is that they can act this way or that if they want to. Well, that's true, but so what? If we aren't talking about what people should do, what's the point of asking whether or not intentions are important?


The point is that I would prefer that any discussion about what should be 'standard practice' not be based on an ideological or faith based premise. We all have opinions about what constitutes fair, just as we all have opinions about a lot of different subjects. If both arguments boil down to, "I fundamentally believe this thing that you do not and I want it to be common practice", then we get deadlock. That is not a compelling argument for anyone outside of the faction that already believes as you do. Such a position is both insurmountable and effectively pointless. It effectively is a 'live and let live' policy, except that in this case such a stance is literally impossible.

We look at abortion? Deadlock due to ideological positions, where a live and let live approach has long since been ruled out. Gay Marriage? Same deal. Trans rights? Same. Immigration? Same. Gun Laws? Same. Confederate Statues? Same. Over and over again, with issue after issue, we see the same pattern. Each side digs an emotionally based trench where the crux of their argument concerns their feelings, rather than the facts of the matter and dig in deep. THIS is what causes such gridlock. If you and others are willing to live with either a never resolved gridlock, or a majority overrule, then by all means continue this attempt to say what people should do.

When I tell people what I think they should do, I fully acknowledge that I am attempting to marginalize their own opinions. Say what you will about the vileness of the ideology of white supremacists and whether it's a good thing that they're being forcibly drowned out, but they are being forcibly drowned out. In a democracy, when two untenable positions appear, one almost always ends up drowning out the other. One side is 'taken up' and the other is for all practical purposes 'ignored'. This is not indefinite. It is not one time decides and that's it. Ideas and political stances periodically fall in and out of vogue due to a variety of factors, but usually, ultimately one 'side' gets elevated for as long as the public will support it.

All of this to say that, ultimately, most people will end up choosing a side and typically whichever has majority will end up being the 'in vogue' stance of the wider culture. Now we don't have to like or accept that in vogue culture as right, or even legal, but we do have to accept that either one of two following options will most likely occur with entrenched, untenable positions. Either they continue in perpetuity, giving everyone a nice good depressing reason to scream at each other for many years to come, or one side gains an advantage in the public consciousnesses and the opposing side is temporarily, or permanently, kicked into a backseat minority position that is basically ignored.

Quote:

So moving on...again...you're saying that if someone does something that offends someone else, the offended has the right to punish them somehow or try to make them feel ashamed. Regardless of whether or not they meant to cause offense. Sure, they have the right. And then that person can get offended that they were publicly shamed and exact retaliation. And then the other people can get offended again and etc, etc, etc, infinite regress of people getting offended and acting like children. Yeah, they have the right. I never denied that.

I think people should take the time to try to understand things when they happen. Because...of all the reasons I've been giving you. That is why I think people should be treated differently when they mean to cause offense versus when they do. I can't really frame my answer properly without saying that, and you're saying I can't really bring that up because "you're not saying people should do this or that." I'm not trying to refute anything by bringing it up though, I'm explaining why I think intent matters.


Now I'm not saying that your premise is wrong, or that your reasoning is flawed, I simply see an argument that is basically as compelling to me as saying 'people should always hold people accountable because they still harmed the victim'. Clearly, you don't agree with that position, and I'm not saying that your wrong. I'm just saying that if that's the best argument you have, don't be surprised when the opposite opinion comes along and basically nothing get's accomplished. The cycle of going around and around in circles just continues in this scenario and nothing meaningful is, usually, gained. To me, this is functionally no different then the scenario in which you alluded to above about the two people who are constantly offended by each other ad naseum and nothing meaningful is accomplished.

Quote:

So again, to keep this simple, you're asking "does it matter if the person doesn't know he is causing offense?"

My answer is yes, it matters. If you think it doesn't, great...I think it does. And I believe people can change their behavior without feeling shame for past behavior. If you think they can't, great. I think you're wrong. I have given clear reasons for why I think so. If you don't want to acknowledge them or don't agree, we're at am impasse.

Jesus Christ, it doesn't have to be this difficult.


You're right. It doesn't have to be this difficult. But I believe it should be. If it was easy, what would be the point in discussing it?
gakINGKONG On October 18, 2022




, Florida
#68New Post! Apr 04, 2019 @ 21:12:24
Great. It's all settled.

Good job everyone.
mrmhead On about 18 hours ago




NE, Ohio
#69New Post! Apr 04, 2019 @ 23:28:48
Has anybody confronted Joe Biden before now?

One person said "He was just trying to help"
and another said "That's the way things were then ..."
(paraphrase, of course)

So Joe is more of a touchy-feely person.
Now he's been corrected. He owns it. He will pay more attention.

It's not like he was bragging in some motorhome that he copped a feel from so-and-so.


... Now, that doesn't mean I necessarily think he should be president (currently leaning no)
Erimitus On July 01, 2021




The mind of God, Antarctica
#70New Post! Apr 05, 2019 @ 06:20:17
@mrmhead Said

Has anybody confronted Joe Biden before now?

One person said "He was just trying to help"
and another said "That's the way things were then ..."
(paraphrase, of course)

So Joe is more of a touchy-feely person.
Now he's been corrected. He owns it. He will pay more attention.

It's not like he was bragging in some motorhome that he copped a feel from so-and-so.


... Now, that doesn't mean I necessarily think he should be president (currently leaning no)



The only reason That nice President Trump gropes the ladies is because he is a touchy feely person.
Eaglebauer On July 23, 2019
Moderator
Deleted



Saint Louis, Missouri
#71New Post! Apr 05, 2019 @ 12:13:05
@Erimitus Said

The only reason That nice President Trump gropes the ladies is because he is a touchy feely person.



He certainly is guided a lot by emotion...usually in the wrong direction, I think.
Eaglebauer On July 23, 2019
Moderator
Deleted



Saint Louis, Missouri
#72New Post! Apr 05, 2019 @ 12:13:41
@nooneinparticular Said

The point is that I would prefer that any discussion about what should be 'standard practice' not be based on an ideological or faith based premise. We all have opinions about what constitutes fair, just as we all have opinions about a lot of different subjects. If both arguments boil down to, "I fundamentally believe this thing that you do not and I want it to be common practice", then we get deadlock. That is not a compelling argument for anyone outside of the faction that already believes as you do. Such a position is both insurmountable and effectively pointless. It effectively is a 'live and let live' policy, except that in this case such a stance is literally impossible.

We look at abortion? Deadlock due to ideological positions, where a live and let live approach has long since been ruled out. Gay Marriage? Same deal. Trans rights? Same. Immigration? Same. Gun Laws? Same. Confederate Statues? Same. Over and over again, with issue after issue, we see the same pattern. Each side digs an emotionally based trench where the crux of their argument concerns their feelings, rather than the facts of the matter and dig in deep. THIS is what causes such gridlock. If you and others are willing to live with either a never resolved gridlock, or a majority overrule, then by all means continue this attempt to say what people should do.

When I tell people what I think they should do, I fully acknowledge that I am attempting to marginalize their own opinions. Say what you will about the vileness of the ideology of white supremacists and whether it's a good thing that they're being forcibly drowned out, but they are being forcibly drowned out. In a democracy, when two untenable positions appear, one almost always ends up drowning out the other. One side is 'taken up' and the other is for all practical purposes 'ignored'. This is not indefinite. It is not one time decides and that's it. Ideas and political stances periodically fall in and out of vogue due to a variety of factors, but usually, ultimately one 'side' gets elevated for as long as the public will support it.

All of this to say that, ultimately, most people will end up choosing a side and typically whichever has majority will end up being the 'in vogue' stance of the wider culture. Now we don't have to like or accept that in vogue culture as right, or even legal, but we do have to accept that either one of two following options will most likely occur with entrenched, untenable positions. Either they continue in perpetuity, giving everyone a nice good depressing reason to scream at each other for many years to come, or one side gains an advantage in the public consciousnesses and the opposing side is temporarily, or permanently, kicked into a backseat minority position that is basically ignored.



Now I'm not saying that your premise is wrong, or that your reasoning is flawed, I simply see an argument that is basically as compelling to me as saying 'people should always hold people accountable because they still harmed the victim'. Clearly, you don't agree with that position, and I'm not saying that your wrong. I'm just saying that if that's the best argument you have, don't be surprised when the opposite opinion comes along and basically nothing get's accomplished. The cycle of going around and around in circles just continues in this scenario and nothing meaningful is, usually, gained. To me, this is functionally no different then the scenario in which you alluded to above about the two people who are constantly offended by each other ad naseum and nothing meaningful is accomplished.



You're right. It doesn't have to be this difficult. But I believe it should be. If it was easy, what would be the point in discussing it?


My answer to your original question is yes, it matters. Because of the way I understand cause and effect in human relationships and how people react to things. Not based on faith, based on science.

Good talk.
Eaglebauer On July 23, 2019
Moderator
Deleted



Saint Louis, Missouri
#73New Post! Apr 05, 2019 @ 12:15:31
@gakINGKONG Said

Great. It's all settled.

Good job everyone.



Indeed, I think we've decided on the roast beef and Swiss on rye.
mrmhead On about 18 hours ago




NE, Ohio
#74New Post! Apr 05, 2019 @ 13:27:48
@Eaglebauer Said

Indeed, I think we've decided on the roast beef and Swiss on rye.



Umm....

Hot or Cold?
DiscordTiger On December 04, 2021
The Queen of Random

Administrator




Emerald City, United States (g
#75New Post! Apr 05, 2019 @ 16:13:30
Wait, I dont like Swiss.
Reply to Topic<< Previous Topic | Next Topic >>
Pages: << · 1 2 3 4 5 6 · >>

1 browsing (0 members - 1 guest)

Quick Reply
Politics Forum - Some Rudeness Allowed

      
Subscribe to topic prefs

Similar Topics
    Forum Topic Last Post Replies Views
New posts   Entertainment
Sat Apr 23, 2011 @ 15:03
1 595
New posts   Entertainment
Tue Jan 17, 2012 @ 06:03
9 1005
New posts   Random
Thu Jul 14, 2011 @ 23:51
15 1206
New posts   Random
Fri Apr 24, 2009 @ 16:22
16 991
New posts   Random
Fri Aug 18, 2006 @ 11:05
14 735